Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • Kidney Week Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • ASN Publications
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • ASN Publications
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • Kidney Week Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow CJASN on Twitter
  • CJASN RSS
  • Community Forum
Critical Care Nephrology and Acute Kidney Injury
Open Access

Overview of Diagnostic Criteria and Epidemiology of Acute Kidney Injury and Acute Kidney Disease in the Critically Ill Patient

Bethany C. Birkelo, Neesh Pannu and Edward D. Siew
CJASN May 2022, 17 (5) 717-735; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.14181021
Bethany C. Birkelo
1Vanderbilt Center for Kidney Disease (VCKD) and Integrated Program for Acute Kidney Injury Research (VIP-AKI), Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Neesh Pannu
2Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Edward D. Siew
1Vanderbilt Center for Kidney Disease (VCKD) and Integrated Program for Acute Kidney Injury Research (VIP-AKI), Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
3Health Services Research and Development, Veterans Affairs Tennessee Valley, Nashville, Tennessee
4Veterans Affairs Geriatrics Research Education and Clinical Center (GRECC), Tennessee Valley Health System (THVS), Veteran’s Health Administration, Nashville, Tennessee
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading

Abstract

Since the description ischuria renalis by William Heberden (1), AKI has remained a prominent complication of critical illness. Beyond KRT, treatment has been limited by the capacity to phenotype this condition. Here, we chronicle the evolution of attempts to classify AKI, including the adoption of consensus definitions, the expansion of diagnosis and prognosis with novel biomarkers, and emerging tools such as artificial intelligence (AI).

  • Critical Care Nephrology and Acute Kidney Injury Series
  • acute kidney injury
  • epidemiology

The Need for a Consensus Definition

Classic textbooks characterize AKI as a rapid decline in GFR and retention of nitrogenous waste products (2). Although clinically accurate, lack of specificity has spawned >30 definitions, hindering comparisons between settings (3,4). To address these limitations, the Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, and End Stage Renal Disease (RIFLE) scheme (Figure 1), initially proposed by the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) in 2004, provided a standardized framework to classify AKI. The least severe category “risk” was defined as a 50% increase in serum creatinine or >25% decrease in eGFR presumed to have occurred within 7 days, with increases in severity labeled “injury,” “failure,” “loss,” and “ESRD” with parallel criteria for oliguria (5). The subsequent Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) Classification System in 2005 eliminated RIFLE’s Loss and ESRD stages and eGFR criteria, and added KRT to stage 3 (6). Given studies showing mortality associated with small increases in creatinine (7), AKIN included a 0.3 mg/dl creatinine increase over 48 hours to improve sensitivity. The most recent AKI classification scheme, introduced by the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) workgroup in 2012 (8), combined elements of both: stage 1 AKI criteria could be met by an increase in creatinine of either 0.3 mg/dl within 48 hours or a 50% increase within 7 days with comparisons showing equivalent or superior sensitivity for AKI detection and similar prognostic performance for AKI staging and outcomes (9⇓⇓–12). Validation studies have also shown that the urine output criteria alone (13,14) and in combination with serum creatinine is associated with mortality in critically ill patients (15). Direct comparisons of urine output and creatinine criteria suggest that creatinine may be the more predictive of the two, with studies in cardiac surgery and cardiac intensive care unit (ICU) patients demonstrating higher risk for adverse outcomes (prolonged length of stay, KRT, and mortality) with AKI by creatinine criteria compared with equivalent stage AKI by urine output (16,17). AKI by both creatinine and urine output criteria had even higher risk of KRT and prolonged length of stay compared with AKI by creatinine alone (16). Despite the prognostic value of urine output, logistic and interpretative challenges have hindered its greater application and generalizability. The hourly capture of this information is challenging in patients without a catheter and outside the ICU and can be confounded by diuretic use and solute loading. Additionally, the optimal threshold urine output is unclear, with one study of patients undergoing abdominal surgery finding a risk of AKI associated with an intraoperative urine output <0.3 ml/kg per hour, but not with urine output <0.5 ml/kg per hour (18). Although routine surveillance may be challenging, short-term monitoring of urine output with provocative testing has shown promise as a prognostic marker in milder AKI. The “furosemide stress test,” assessed by urine flow rate after a standardized dose of furosemide, has been shown to predict progression to higher stages of AKI (19,20).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

RIFLE, AKIN, and KDIGO systems for AKI classification. Urine output and serum creatinine criteria for the RIFLE, AKIN, and KDIGO classification systems for AKI. AKIN, Acute Kidney Injury Network; Cr, creatinine; KDIGO, Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes; RIFLE, Risk, Assessment, Failure, Loss, and End Stage Renal Disease; SCr, serum creatinine.

What Have the Consensus Definitions Taught Us about AKI in the ICU

The application of these definitions uncovered the unappreciated burden of kidney dysfunction among the critically ill. Before RIFLE, reported incidences of AKI ranged from 1% to 25%, although these studies primarily focused on more severe AKI (3,4,21). Studies utilizing the RIFLE, AKIN, or KDIGO criteria in ICU populations reported higher incidences, with one- to two-thirds of patients afflicted (11,22⇓⇓⇓⇓–27). Consensus definitions have also elucidated the prognosis of AKI beyond earlier studies, which demonstrated in-hospital mortality rates of up to 40%–60% in severe cases (3,4). By leveraging a consistent framework, studies have shown that mild AKI is associated with mortality (7,28) and a graded association between increasing AKI severity and death (Table 1) (22,23,27,29⇓⇓⇓⇓–34). The former demonstrated that even in the absence of overt failure, lesser degrees of kidney dysfunction were clinically relevant, facilitating widespread adoption of the term “acute kidney injury.” Although not limited to critical illness, studies using these definitions have also shown associations between AKI and long-term sequelae including kidney disease progression (35,36), cardiovascular outcomes (37⇓–39), and frailty (40) (Table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Studies of AKI outcomes

These consensus definitions have also provided a framework to study the dynamic trajectory of AKI during critical illness and the importance of recovery. In one study, patients who recovered from AKI within 7 days and did not experience a relapse had 1-year survival >90% (41), whereas those who had a relapse of AKI after early recovery had a five-fold higher risk of death at 1 year. No recovery from AKI had the worst prognosis with approximately 40% survival at 1 year (41). The extent to which these associations are explained by a lack of kidney recovery itself versus the more severe underlying illness prompting nonrecovery is not clear; however, these findings parallel studies of AKI survivors in large health care databases demonstrating an association between the degree of recovery and the risk for mortality and CKD over longer durations (35,42).

Use in Clinical Trials and Practice

AKI management recommendations on the basis of stage have been proposed in the KDIGO practice guidelines (8) and the National Kidney Foundation AKI Core Curriculum (43); however, benefit in routine practice remains to be demonstrated. More recently, the KDIGO criteria have been applied to standardize and improve the reproducibility of clinical trials and enrich for patients more likely to benefit from interventions. Recent studies comparing early versus late initiation of dialysis used these criteria to identify more advanced stages of AKI to enrich for participants more likely to require dialysis (44⇓⇓–47). These criteria have also been increasingly applied as outcomes in studies of balanced crystalloid use (48,49) and trials evaluating “bundle” interventions for AKI prevention (50,51). As familiarity improves, standard use of these criteria may also help audiences interpret and compare the effect of interventions.

Limitations of Consensus Definitions

Despite improving understanding, conceptual and logistic limitations remain. AKI requires observed changes in creatinine, but the “baseline” creatinine to anchor that definition is often missing. For patients admitted with elevated creatinine, it can be unclear whether the dysfunction is chronic or acute. Various strategies are used to impute surrogate values, each with strengths and limitations (Table 2), and this variety has hindered effective comparisons when applying consensus definitions (5,52⇓–54). Although modifications to introduce specificity and “reduce the need for a baseline” (e.g., use of a 48-hour window) have been proposed, the potential for underestimating AKI incidence or severity remains (Table 2). Further, creatinine and urine output can be confounded by changes in the volume of distribution, diuretic use, and altered creatinine production, which can threaten specificity and project an overly optimistic picture of recovery (55⇓⇓–58). One study of patients with ICU stays >5 days showed persistent decreases in serum creatinine in both AKI and non-AKI patients (59). These limitations may be most apparent when using the most sensitive definitions of AKI (e.g., stage 1). Notably, the original RIFLE criteria acknowledged that these criteria may be overly sensitive in attempting to capture the larger population at “risk” for parenchymal injury; however, labeling mild changes as “injury” in subsequent iterations may have unintendedly masked this original sentiment. Many of these limitations, and some emerging concepts, were noted in the 2019 KDIGO controversies conference of AKI, including the need for subsequent definitions to include distinctions for AKI persistence, transience, and relapsing or recovered AKI, and the potential incorporation of kidney injury biomarkers (60).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Techniques for addressing missing baseline creatinine and their potential strengths and limitations (54,116)

Perhaps the most insidious limitation of the consensus definitions is the temptation to mistake the precision they add as a replacement that addresses the larger phenotyping barriers still limiting progress in developing novel therapeutics in AKI. From the application of existing care strategies to better aligning novel interventions to target populations, the need for a pragmatic and accurate way to classify the heterogeneity and pathophysiology underlying AKI remains a critical challenge.

Acute Kidney Disease

It has also been recognized that AKI and CKD are not discrete entities, but exist in a continuum, with short reversible changes identified as AKI and persistent or irreversible changes in kidney function identified as de novo or progressive CKD. Although current AKI and CKD definitions are useful constructs for studying epidemiology, their limitations include failure to recognize smaller or more subacute changes in kidney function that are associated with clinically relevant outcomes or account for the prognostic importance of kidney function trajectory after an AKI event. In practice, the absence of an inclusive definition may delay recognition and treatment of acute kidney disorders not meeting AKI or CKD criteria but with common risk factors and outcomes.

To address these gaps, the term “acute kidney disease” (AKD) was first proposed as part of the 2012 KDIGO AKI definition to better identify all kidney injury (biomarker positivity, including proteinuria) or functional derangements lasting <90 days. In this paradigm, AKI—by virtue of placing a greater emphasis on events occurring within a shorter time frame (48 hours to 7 days)—is a subset of AKD. Given the heterogenous nature of AKD, an initial classification system and management recommendations were not included. Non-AKI AKD could have several clinical phenotypes in both inpatient and outpatient settings, including newly identified biomarker positivity (proteinuria or novel biomarkers) in the absence of changes in kidney function, newly identified abnormalities in kidney function in the absence of a reference value, and subacute changes in kidney function (not meeting temporal AKI criteria).

AKD has not been systematically studied, due in part to the recognition that the term could represent many different phenotypes. James et al. described the incidence and prognostic importance of AKD in a Canadian population-based cohort study that included both hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients and found that AKD without AKI was three times more prevalent than AKI (3.8% versus 1.5%) and associated with a higher risk of CKD, kidney failure, and mortality compared with patients with no kidney disease (61). Similar findings have been shown using UK and Danish cohorts (62,63).

In 2017 the ADQI proposed an alternative definition of AKD that included a classification system and enhanced integration within the current AKI framework (64). In this schema, AKI was identified by acute changes in kidney function occurring within a 7-day time frame, with persistent changes in kidney function lasting beyond 7 days labeled as AKD (Figure 2). AKD could then be classified according to AKI stage to better classify the extent of kidney recovery and its prognostic effect after AKI. Changes persisting beyond 90 days would be reclassified as CKD. Although potentially useful in the setting of critical illness, where kidney function is frequently measured and etiology and epidemiology are well studied, frequent assessment of kidney function is lacking in most studies, with the lack of electronic health record (EHR) interoperability in the United States representing one challenge for follow-up. The framework requires further validation and does not address subacute kidney injury (non-AKI AKD), which clearly has prognostic importance. The KDIGO AKD definition was recently revised to reflect differences between AKD without AKI and AKD with AKI, with staging on the basis of eGFR and albuminuria added in those with AKD and not AKI (65). As our understanding of kidney injury evolves, our definitions of AKI and AKD will likely evolve in parallel.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

AKI, acute kidney disease, and chronic kidney disease continuum. Framework proposed by the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) workgroup for AKI, acute kidney disease (AKD), and CKD. Duration of time after the injury determines the category of disease (AKI, AKD, or CKD). Stages of AKD map to the corresponding AKI stages. Stage 0 AKD indicates partial recovery from AKI. Stage 0A includes patients who have completely recovered from AKI with no residual evidence of injury but retain the risk of long-term events. Stage 0B includes patients whose serum creatinine has returned to baseline but who have evidence of ongoing kidney damage, injury, or loss of kidney functional reserve. Stage 0C includes patients with serum creatinine levels above baseline but within 1.5 times baseline. Figure and caption from the consensus report of the ADQI 16 workgroup by Chawla et al. (64). KDIGO, Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes; SCr, serum creatinine.

Novel Biomarkers of AKI

The above attempts have collectively underscored sensitivity and specificity limitations of serum creatinine and urine output, a point recently illustrated by a biopsy series of kidney damage where one-third of patients did not meet KDIGO AKI criteria (66). These limitations have generated interest in the development and validation of novel biomarkers that better reflect parenchymal injury and provide prognostic information. Novel markers have generally been characterized as indicating tubular “damage” or “stress,” with the former including, but not limited to, neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL), kidney injury molecule–1 (KIM-1), IL-18, and L-type fatty acid binding protein (L-FABP), and the latter including tissue-inhibitor of metalloproteinases 2 (TIMP-2) and IGF-binding protein 7 (IGFBP7). Other candidate biomarkers, such as C-C motif chemokine ligand 14 (CCL14), dickkopf-related protein 3 (DKK3), and chitinase 3–like–1 gene product (YKL-40), have emerged as potentially promising predictors of postoperative AKI (67), AKI persistence (68), and AKI progression and hospital mortality (69). These have led to novel concepts such as “subclinical injury” and characterizing AKI by the presence of functional and/or structural damage (Figure 3) (70). The clinical importance of subclinical injury was demonstrated in a study of the French and European Outcome Registry in ICUs (FROG-ICU) and Adrenomedullin and Outcome in Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock-1 (AdrenOSS-1) cohorts of critically ill patients, in which subclinical AKI (defined by elevated plasma proenkephalin A 119–159 levels) occurred in 6.1%–6.7% of patients and was associated with a higher risk of death at 28 days compared with those without subclinical AKI (hazard ratio [HR] 2.4; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.5 to 3.7, for FROG-ICU cohort; HR 2.5; 95% CI, 1.1 to 5.9, for AdrenOSS-1 cohort) (71). Other areas of investigation have included risk stratification, early detection of AKI, assessing prognosis and recovery, enriching clinical trials, detecting nephrotoxic signals, and measuring responses to interventions.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

AKI categorization using novel biomarkers. At the tenth consensus conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) workgroup, an early framework for the clinical use of novel biomarkers in combination with functional biomarkers of AKI (i.e., serum creatinine and urine output) was developed, wherein functional change and evidence of structural damage (manifested by elevations in damage biomarkers) together provided more detailed categorization of AKI. This framework was recently updated during the 23rd ADQI meeting. In the revised system, each KDIGO stage of AKI is subcategorized by the presence or absence of damage biomarkers. For KDIGO stage 1 AKI (shown in the figure), these include stage 1S (i.e., “subclinical” AKI), stage 1A (functional change without elevated damage biomarkers), and stage 1B (functional change and elevated damage biomarkers). Stages 2–3 AKI are defined by parallel criteria. These changes aim to improve the sensitivity for AKI detection and to discriminate underlying etiology and assess severity, although this staging system for AKI remains to be validated (91). Notably, subclinical AKI has been shown to be associated with adverse outcomes, including mortality and need for KRT (112,113). Red arrows denote progression; blue arrows denote resolution. Figure adapted from Koyner et al. (114) and Ostermann et al. (91). KDIGO, Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes.

A focus of early inquiry examined the potential of these markers to “predict” or detect early AKI, with studies demonstrating mixed performance (72⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–79). Two recently discovered markers, TIMP-2 and IGFBP7, are expressed in kidney tubular cells during physiologic stress or injury. Their combined use has been demonstrated to predict the development of stage 2–3 AKI within 12 hours in critically ill patients with areas under the curve between 0.79 and 0.82, generally outperforming earlier markers of tubular injury (80,81). Although the Food and Drug Administration allowed marketing as a complementary tool for risk assessment in adults with recent cardiovascular and respiratory failure (82), studies attempting to better define the clinical interpretation and actionability of TIMP-2*IGFBP7 and other markers remain. Some limitations include challenges with comparison with an imperfect creatinine standard (83⇓–85) and difficulty pinpointing the exact timing of injury in the critically ill (86,87), which may help explain the superior negative predictive values relative to the more modest positive predictive values generally observed (88). Despite some uncertainty regarding their role for early diagnosis, several biomarkers have been shown to provide additional prognostic information (Table 3).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Studies of novel biomarkers

Notably, because kidney biopsies are rarely performed in the ICU, few studies have compared the performance of these markers against a histologic standard. One study examined the performance of L-FABP, IL-18, and KIM-1 for diagnosing acute tubular injury (ATI) on biopsy (89). Compared with serum creatinine, NGAL levels were higher in mild and severe ATI compared with no ATI and exhibited higher discrimination for severe ATI (0.67; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.74) compared with creatinine alone (0.58; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.67) (89). Although not in a critically ill population, these findings suggest that the specificity for some markers for detecting histologic ATI may be modest. Efforts to continue validating these markers and find clinicopathologic correlates are ongoing. One example is the Kidney Precision Medicine Project, an ambitious program whose goal is to prospectively enroll patients with AKI and CKD to define molecular pathways for specific disease subphenotypes through the collection of biospecimens and the development of a kidney tissue atlas (90).

Given these collective characteristics, the ADQI recently suggested that damage markers be combined with conventional functional markers to improve diagnostic accuracy and assess severity, including a modification to KDIGO staging that adds substages on the basis of biomarker levels (91). The overall strength of the recommendation was a B (conditional), indicating that further research is needed to improve confidence. Nevertheless, many of these markers have been leveraged in recent clinical trials to enrich for populations at higher risk for clinical outcomes (Table 3) (45,50,51). In the Biomarker Guided Implementation of the KDIGO Guidelines to Reduce the Occurrence of AKI in Patients After Cardiac Surgery (PrevAKI) study, an AKI care bundle (optimization of volume status and hemodynamics, avoidance of nephrotoxins, and prevention of hyperglycemia) was tested in patients undergoing cardiac surgery among those with an elevated level of TIMP-2*IGFBP7 (≥0.3) after cardiopulmonary bypass and demonstrated reduced incidence of AKI (Table 3) (51). Similarly, the Biomarker-guided Intervention to Prevent Acute Kidney Injury After Major Surgery (BigpAK) study tested an AKI bundle in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery and used TIMP-2*IGFBP7 levels to identify ICU patients at high risk of AKI. Although no global differences in AKI stages between arms were observed, a subgroup with elevated biomarker levels showed a reduction in AKI incidence (27% versus 48%; P=0.03) (50). These studies indicate that biomarker-guided interventions may be useful in identifying patients who may respond to clinical interventions. Whether these performance characteristics can extend to routine practice for triage purposes, or prompt more aggressive diagnostic evaluation or resuscitation, is under investigation (92,93).

Another interest has been in determining whether biomarkers can discriminate between known phenotypes of AKI and help discover new phenotypes. Few studies have compared expression patterns of biomarkers to differentiate causes of AKI. In one study of 218 patients who underwent kidney biopsies for evaluation of AKD, high levels of TNF-α and IL-19 were strongly associated with acute interstitial nephritis, enhancing the area under receiver operating characteristic curve of prebiopsy clinical impression (94). Recently, a substudy of the Vasopressin and Septic Shock Trial in patients with AKI measured angiopoietin-1 and -2, soluble tumor necrosis factors receptor 1, and IL-18 and used latent class analysis to identify two subphenotypes of AKI, one of which had a higher risk of nonrecovery and 28-day mortality, suggesting that similar approaches could be used to identify molecularly distinct AKI subphenotypes with differential responses to therapy (95).

In summary, novel biomarkers for AKI remain an evolving area of investigation. Despite ongoing molecular and clinical validation of their strength as specific indicators of tubular injury or stress, findings to date have led to early applications suggesting potential use cases in clinical trials, in phenotyping, and in guiding current clinical management.

Artificial Intelligence/Informatics

The simplicity of laboratory-based consensus definitions of AKI makes them an ideal target for interventions using clinical decision support (CDS). Leveraging EHRs using bioinformatics and AI has potential uses in the context of AKI, including AKI alerting, predictive analytics, AKI phenotyping, and risk-based management. The feasibility of CDS/AI to reduce the rate, duration, and intensity of AKI has been demonstrated in a number of clinical settings (96,97). Not all studies using CDS/AI have demonstrated improved outcomes (98) however, perhaps reflecting differences in implementation and clinical heterogeneity.

Predicting AKI using CDS paired with specific interventions may be more promising. The Nephrotoxic Injury Negated by Just in time Action (NINJA) alert program is a notable example, where Goldstein and colleagues demonstrated a sustained reduction in nephrotoxin-mediated AKI in hospitalized pediatric patients by identifying patients at highest risk through nephrotoxic drug exposure and deprescription (99). The NINJA alert program has been validated in multiple centers (100).

AI has been used to predict AKI in numerous care settings (101⇓–103). Koyner et al. utilized EHR data to develop a prediction tool that predicts stage 2 AKI a median of 41 hours before a rise in serum creatinine and the need for dialysis within 2 days. The tool performed well across numerous adult care settings (102). Siminov et al. implemented an AKI prediction tool across several institutions and were able to predict AKI 24 hours before a rise in creatinine and the need for dialysis and mortality (103). Other groups have used similar techniques to predict AKI in specific clinical settings, including adults with severe burns (104), and acute pancreatitis (105), postoperative (106), and cardiac patients (107,108). Although such prediction tools have potential to mitigate ongoing kidney injury, all require external validation and their implementation has not been shown to improve patient-centered outcomes. Evidence-based interventions supported by these risk-prediction tools need to be tested before widespread implementation.

AI may have a further role in phenotyping AKI trajectory and risk assessment after an AKI event, including prediction of risk of rehospitalization, recurrent AKI, heart failure hospitalization, and other comorbidities. Semler et al. demonstrated the feasibility of using AI to predict major adverse kidney events by 30 days (MAKE 30), which may allow delivery of risk-stratified post-AKI follow-up care in the future (109).

There are many opportunities to leverage the power of AI to recognize and phenotype AKI and to improve the care and follow-up of AKI patients. The AI working group of the AKI!Now initiative of the American Society of Nephrology represents the growing momentum in this field and ongoing collaborative efforts to use data science and quality initiatives to improve early recognition and treatment of AKI and to reduce the disease burden on patients and health systems (110,111).

Conclusion

Critically ill patients are subject to diverse and severe forms of AKI. Although the past three decades have brought significant advances in AKI epidemiology and prognosis, the development of treatment for AKI beyond supportive (i.e., dialytic) therapy has been stalled by the limited phenotyping of this heterogeneous condition. There is reason for optimism, however, because continued multifaceted approaches to advance AKI phenotyping may eventually allow investigators to better pair potential therapies with underlying pathophysiology and identify new targets.

Disclosures

N. Pannu reports employment with Alberta Health Services; consultancy agreements with GE; serving on the board of directors of the Kidney Foundation of Canada, Northern Alberta branch; and funding from Amgen for a quality improvement initiative in ESKD. N. Pannu also reports honoraria from Astellas in 2011; World Congress of Nephrology (WCN)—covered travel expenses as speaker $1000.00 in 2013; International Society of Nephrology (ISN)—covered travel expenses of $700.00 for Mexican National Nephrology Meeting March 2015; Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI)—travel expenses for November 2015, June 2017 meeting; WCN—speaker, covered expenses 2017, 2019, 2020; and ISN—speaker, covered expenses 2017, 2018, 2019, ADQI AKI meeting 2020 $1000.00 USD honorarium, and AKI Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy meeting 2021 (provided microphone and lamp for speakers). E.D. Siew reports employment with Nashville Veterans Affairs, consultancy agreements with Akebia Therapeutics on 4/2019, honorarium for an invited educational talk on AKI epidemiology at the DaVita Annual Physician Leadership Conference 2/2019, serving as an Associate Editor of CJASN, and royalties as an author for UpToDate. The remaining author has nothing to disclose.

Funding

B.C. Birkelo is supported by National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases grant T32DK007569-32. N. Pannu is supported by funding from the Canadian Institute for Health Research. E.D. Siew is supported by the Vanderbilt O’Brien Kidney Center grant P30-DK114809 Clinical and Translational Research Core.

Acknowledgments

Because Dr. Edward D. Siew is an Associate Editor of CJASN, he was not involved in the peer review process for this manuscript. Another editor oversaw the peer review and decision-making process for this manuscript.

Author Contributions

Bethany C. Birkelo was responsible for conceptualization, data curation, methodology, and visualization; wrote the original draft; and reviewed and edited the manuscript. Neesh Pannu was responsible for conceptualization, data curation, investigation, methodology, and visualization; wrote the original draft; and reviewed and edited the manuscript. Edward D. Siew was responsible for conceptualization, investigation, methodology, project administration, supervision, and visualization; wrote the original draft; and reviewed and edited the manuscript.

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.cjasn.org.

  • Copyright © 2022 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    1. Eknoyan G
    : Emergence of the concept of acute renal failure. Am J Nephrol 22: 225–230, 2002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Kasper D,
    2. Hauser S,
    3. Jameson J,
    4. Fauci A,
    5. Longo D,
    6. Loscalzo J
    1. Waikar SS,
    2. Bonventre JV
    : Acute kidney injury. In: Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, 19th Ed., edited by Kasper D, Hauser S, Jameson J, Fauci A, Longo D, Loscalzo J, New York, McGraw Hill, 2017, pp 1799
  3. ↵
    1. de Mendonça A,
    2. Vincent JL,
    3. Suter PM,
    4. Moreno R,
    5. Dearden NM,
    6. Antonelli M,
    7. Takala J,
    8. Sprung C,
    9. Cantraine F
    : Acute renal failure in the ICU: Risk factors and outcome evaluated by the SOFA score. Intensive Care Med 26: 915–921, 2000
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Uchino S,
    2. Kellum JA,
    3. Bellomo R,
    4. Doig GS,
    5. Morimatsu H,
    6. Morgera S,
    7. Schetz M,
    8. Tan I,
    9. Bouman C,
    10. Macedo E,
    11. Gibney N,
    12. Tolwani A,
    13. Ronco C; Beginning and Ending Supportive Therapy for the Kidney (BEST Kidney) Investigators
    : Acute renal failure in critically ill patients: A multinational, multicenter study. JAMA 294: 813–818, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Bellomo R,
    2. Ronco C,
    3. Kellum JA,
    4. Mehta RL,
    5. Palevsky P; Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative workgroup
    : Acute renal failure – definition, outcome measures, animal models, fluid therapy and information technology needs: The Second International Consensus Conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) Group. Crit Care 8: R204–R212, 2004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Mehta RL,
    2. Kellum JA,
    3. Shah SV,
    4. Molitoris BA,
    5. Ronco C,
    6. Warnock DG,
    7. Levin A; Acute Kidney Injury Network
    : Acute Kidney Injury Network: Report of an initiative to improve outcomes in acute kidney injury. Crit Care 11: R31, 2007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Chertow GM,
    2. Burdick E,
    3. Honour M,
    4. Bonventre JV,
    5. Bates DW
    : Acute kidney injury, mortality, length of stay, and costs in hospitalized patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 16: 3365–3370, 2005
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes
    : KDIGO Clinical Practice Guidelines for Acute Kidney Injury, 2012. Available at: https://kdigo.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/KDIGO-2012-AKI-Guideline-English.pdf. Accessed February 28, 2022
  9. ↵
    1. Luo X,
    2. Jiang L,
    3. Du B,
    4. Wen Y,
    5. Wang M,
    6. Xi X; Beijing Acute Kidney Injury Trial (BAKIT) workgroup
    : A comparison of different diagnostic criteria of acute kidney injury in critically ill patients. Crit Care 18: R144, 2014
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Fujii T,
    2. Uchino S,
    3. Takinami M,
    4. Bellomo R
    : Validation of the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes criteria for AKI and comparison of three criteria in hospitalized patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 9: 848–854, 2014
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Nisula S,
    2. Kaukonen KM,
    3. Vaara ST,
    4. Korhonen AM,
    5. Poukkanen M,
    6. Karlsson S,
    7. Haapio M,
    8. Inkinen O,
    9. Parviainen I,
    10. Suojaranta-Ylinen R,
    11. Laurila JJ,
    12. Tenhunen J,
    13. Reinikainen M,
    14. Ala-Kokko T,
    15. Ruokonen E,
    16. Kuitunen A,
    17. Pettilä V; FINNAKI Study Group
    : Incidence, risk factors and 90-day mortality of patients with acute kidney injury in Finnish intensive care units: The FINNAKI study. Intensive Care Med 39: 420–428, 2013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Bastin AJ,
    2. Ostermann M,
    3. Slack AJ,
    4. Diller GP,
    5. Finney SJ,
    6. Evans TW
    : Acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery according to Risk/Injury/Failure/Loss/End-stage, Acute Kidney Injury Network, and Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes classifications. J Crit Care 28: 389–396, 2013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Petäjä L,
    2. Vaara S,
    3. Liuhanen S,
    4. Suojaranta-Ylinen R,
    5. Mildh L,
    6. Nisula S,
    7. Korhonen AM,
    8. Kaukonen KM,
    9. Salmenperä M,
    10. Pettilä V
    : Acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery by complete KDIGO criteria predicts increased mortality. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 31: 827–836, 2017
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Qin JP,
    2. Yu XY,
    3. Qian CY,
    4. Li SS,
    5. Qin TH,
    6. Chen EZ,
    7. Lin JD,
    8. Ai YH,
    9. Wu DW,
    10. Liu DX,
    11. Sun RH,
    12. Hu ZJ,
    13. Cao XY,
    14. Zhou FC,
    15. He ZY,
    16. Zhou LH,
    17. An YZ,
    18. Kang Y,
    19. Ma XC,
    20. Zhao MY,
    21. Jiang L,
    22. Xu Y,
    23. Du B; China Critical Care Clinical Trial Group (CCCCTG)
    : Value of Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes urine output criteria in critically ill patients: A secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort study. Chin Med J (Engl) 129: 2050–2057, 2016
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Kellum JA,
    2. Sileanu FE,
    3. Murugan R,
    4. Lucko N,
    5. Shaw AD,
    6. Clermont G
    : Classifying AKI by urine output versus serum creatinine level. J Am Soc Nephrol 26: 2231–2238, 2015
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Howitt SH,
    2. Grant SW,
    3. Caiado C,
    4. Carlson E,
    5. Kwon D,
    6. Dimarakis I,
    7. Malagon I,
    8. McCollum C
    : The KDIGO acute kidney injury guidelines for cardiac surgery patients in critical care: A validation study. BMC Nephrol 19: 149, 2018
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Lagny MG,
    2. Jouret F,
    3. Koch JN,
    4. Blaffart F,
    5. Donneau AF,
    6. Albert A,
    7. Roediger L,
    8. Krzesinski JM,
    9. Defraigne JO
    : Incidence and outcomes of acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery using either criteria of the RIFLE classification. BMC Nephrol 16: 76, 2015
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Mizota T,
    2. Yamamoto Y,
    3. Hamada M,
    4. Matsukawa S,
    5. Shimizu S,
    6. Kai S
    : Intraoperative oliguria predicts acute kidney injury after major abdominal surgery. Br J Anaesth 119: 1127–1134, 2017
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Chawla LS,
    2. Davison DL,
    3. Brasha-Mitchell E,
    4. Koyner JL,
    5. Arthur JM,
    6. Shaw AD,
    7. Tumlin JA,
    8. Trevino SA,
    9. Kimmel PL,
    10. Seneff MG
    : Development and standardization of a furosemide stress test to predict the severity of acute kidney injury. Crit Care 17: R207, 2013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Rewa OG,
    2. Bagshaw SM,
    3. Wang X,
    4. Wald R,
    5. Smith O,
    6. Shapiro J,
    7. McMahon B,
    8. Liu KD,
    9. Trevino SA,
    10. Chawla LS,
    11. Koyner JL
    : The furosemide stress test for prediction of worsening acute kidney injury in critically ill patients: A multicenter, prospective, observational study. J Crit Care 52: 109–114, 2019
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Chertow GM,
    2. Levy EM,
    3. Hammermeister KE,
    4. Grover F,
    5. Daley J
    : Independent association between acute renal failure and mortality following cardiac surgery. Am J Med 104: 343–348, 1998
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Bagshaw SM,
    2. George C,
    3. Dinu I,
    4. Bellomo R
    : A multi-centre evaluation of the RIFLE criteria for early acute kidney injury in critically ill patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 23: 1203–1210, 2008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Ostermann M,
    2. Chang RW
    : Acute kidney injury in the intensive care unit according to RIFLE. Crit Care Med 35: 1837–1843, quiz 1852, 2007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Bagshaw SM,
    2. George C,
    3. Bellomo R; ANZICS Database Management Committe
    : A comparison of the RIFLE and AKIN criteria for acute kidney injury in critically ill patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 23: 1569–1574, 2008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Hoste EA,
    2. Clermont G,
    3. Kersten A,
    4. Venkataraman R,
    5. Angus DC,
    6. De Bacquer D,
    7. Kellum JA
    : RIFLE criteria for acute kidney injury are associated with hospital mortality in critically ill patients: A cohort analysis. Crit Care 10: R73, 2006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Srisawat N,
    2. Sileanu FE,
    3. Murugan R,
    4. Bellomod R,
    5. Calzavacca P,
    6. Cartin-Ceba R,
    7. Cruz D,
    8. Finn J,
    9. Hoste EE,
    10. Kashani K,
    11. Ronco C,
    12. Webb S,
    13. Kellum JA; Acute Kidney Injury-6 Study Group
    : Variation in risk and mortality of acute kidney injury in critically ill patients: A multicenter study. Am J Nephrol 41: 81–88, 2015
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    1. Hoste EA,
    2. Bagshaw SM,
    3. Bellomo R,
    4. Cely CM,
    5. Colman R,
    6. Cruz DN,
    7. Edipidis K,
    8. Forni LG,
    9. Gomersall CD,
    10. Govil D,
    11. Honoré PM,
    12. Joannes-Boyau O,
    13. Joannidis M,
    14. Korhonen AM,
    15. Lavrentieva A,
    16. Mehta RL,
    17. Palevsky P,
    18. Roessler E,
    19. Ronco C,
    20. Uchino S,
    21. Vazquez JA,
    22. Vidal Andrade E,
    23. Webb S,
    24. Kellum JA
    : Epidemiology of acute kidney injury in critically ill patients: The multinational AKI-EPI study. Intensive Care Med 41: 1411–1423, 2015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Lassnigg A,
    2. Schmidlin D,
    3. Mouhieddine M,
    4. Bachmann LM,
    5. Druml W,
    6. Bauer P,
    7. Hiesmayr M
    : Minimal changes of serum creatinine predict prognosis in patients after cardiothoracic surgery: A prospective cohort study. J Am Soc Nephrol 15: 1597–1605, 2004
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Thakar CV,
    2. Christianson A,
    3. Freyberg R,
    4. Almenoff P,
    5. Render ML
    : Incidence and outcomes of acute kidney injury in intensive care units: A Veterans Administration study. Crit Care Med 37: 2552–2558, 2009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Hoste EA,
    2. Schurgers M
    : Epidemiology of acute kidney injury: How big is the problem? Crit Care Med 36[Suppl]: S146–S151, 2008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Bell M,
    2. Liljestam E,
    3. Granath F,
    4. Fryckstedt J,
    5. Ekbom A,
    6. Martling CR
    : Optimal follow-up time after continuous renal replacement therapy in actual renal failure patients stratified with the RIFLE criteria. Nephrol Dial Transplant 20: 354–360, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Abosaif NY,
    2. Tolba YA,
    3. Heap M,
    4. Russell J,
    5. El Nahas AM
    : The outcome of acute renal failure in the intensive care unit according to RIFLE: Model application, sensitivity, and predictability. Am J Kidney Dis 46: 1038–1048, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Lopes JA,
    2. Jorge S,
    3. Resina C,
    4. Santos C,
    5. Pereira A,
    6. Neves J,
    7. Antunes F,
    8. Prata MM
    : Prognostic utility of RIFLE for acute renal failure in patients with sepsis. Crit Care 11: 408, 2007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Ahlström A,
    2. Kuitunen A,
    3. Peltonen S,
    4. Hynninen M,
    5. Tallgren M,
    6. Aaltonen J,
    7. Pettilä V
    : Comparison of 2 acute renal failure severity scores to general scoring systems in the critically ill. Am J Kidney Dis 48: 262–268, 2006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. James MT,
    2. Pannu N,
    3. Hemmelgarn BR,
    4. Austin PC,
    5. Tan Z,
    6. McArthur E,
    7. Manns BJ,
    8. Tonelli M,
    9. Wald R,
    10. Quinn RR,
    11. Ravani P,
    12. Garg AX
    : Derivation and external validation of prediction models for advanced chronic kidney disease following acute kidney injury. JAMA 318: 1787–1797, 2017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Coca SG,
    2. Singanamala S,
    3. Parikh CR
    : Chronic kidney disease after acute kidney injury: A systematic review and meta- analysis. Kidney Int 81: 442–448, 2012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Ikizler TA,
    2. Parikh CR,
    3. Himmelfarb J,
    4. Chinchilli VM,
    5. Liu KD,
    6. Coca SG,
    7. Garg AX,
    8. Hsu CY,
    9. Siew ED,
    10. Wurfel MM,
    11. Ware LB,
    12. Faulkner GB,
    13. Tan TC,
    14. Kaufman JS,
    15. Kimmel PL,
    16. Go AS; ASSESS-AKI Study Investigators
    : A prospective cohort study of acute kidney injury and kidney outcomes, cardiovascular events, and death. Kidney Int 99: 456–465, 2021
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. ↵
    1. Bansal N,
    2. Matheny ME,
    3. Greevy Jr RA,
    4. Eden SK,
    5. Perkins AM,
    6. Parr SK,
    7. Fly J,
    8. Abdel-Kader K,
    9. Himmelfarb J,
    10. Hung AM,
    11. Speroff T,
    12. Ikizler TA,
    13. Siew ED
    : Acute kidney injury and risk of incident heart failure among US veterans. Am J Kidney Dis 71: 236–245, 2018
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    1. Go AS,
    2. Hsu CY,
    3. Yang J,
    4. Tan TC,
    5. Zheng S,
    6. Ordonez JD,
    7. Liu KD
    : Acute kidney injury and risk of heart failure and atherosclerotic events. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 13: 833–841, 2018
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Abdel-Kader K,
    2. Girard TD,
    3. Brummel NE,
    4. Saunders CT,
    5. Blume JD,
    6. Clark AJ,
    7. Vincz AJ,
    8. Ely EW,
    9. Jackson JC,
    10. Bell SP,
    11. Archer KR,
    12. Ikizler TA,
    13. Pandharipande PP,
    14. Siew ED
    : Acute kidney injury and subsequent frailty status in survivors of critical illness: A secondary analysis. Crit Care Med 46: e380–e388, 2018
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Kellum JA,
    2. Sileanu FE,
    3. Bihorac A,
    4. Hoste EA,
    5. Chawla LS
    : Recovery after acute kidney injury. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 195: 784–791, 2017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Pannu N,
    2. James M,
    3. Hemmelgarn B,
    4. Klarenbach S; Alberta Kidney Disease Network
    : Association between AKI, recovery of renal function, and long-term outcomes after hospital discharge. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 8: 194–202, 2013
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. ↵
    1. Moore PK,
    2. Hsu RK,
    3. Liu KD
    : Management of acute kidney injury: Core Curriculum 2018. Am J Kidney Dis 72: 136–148, 2018
    OpenUrl
  44. ↵
    1. Gaudry S,
    2. Hajage D,
    3. Schortgen F,
    4. Martin-Lefevre L,
    5. Pons B,
    6. Boulet E,
    7. Boyer A,
    8. Chevrel G,
    9. Lerolle N,
    10. Carpentier D,
    11. de Prost N,
    12. Lautrette A,
    13. Bretagnol A,
    14. Mayaux J,
    15. Nseir S,
    16. Megarbane B,
    17. Thirion M,
    18. Forel JM,
    19. Maizel J,
    20. Yonis H,
    21. Markowicz P,
    22. Thiery G,
    23. Tubach F,
    24. Ricard JD,
    25. Dreyfuss D; AKIKI Study Group
    : Initiation strategies for renal-replacement therapy in the intensive care unit. N Engl J Med 375: 122–133, 2016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Zarbock A,
    2. Kellum JA,
    3. Schmidt C,
    4. Van Aken H,
    5. Wempe C,
    6. Pavenstädt H,
    7. Boanta A,
    8. Gerß J,
    9. Meersch M
    : Effect of early vs delayed initiation of renal replacement therapy on mortality in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury: The ELAIN randomized clinical trial. JAMA 315: 2190–2199, 2016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Barbar SD,
    2. Clere-Jehl R,
    3. Bourredjem A,
    4. Hernu R,
    5. Montini F,
    6. Bruyère R,
    7. Lebert C,
    8. Bohé J,
    9. Badie J,
    10. Eraldi JP,
    11. Rigaud JP,
    12. Levy B,
    13. Siami S,
    14. Louis G,
    15. Bouadma L,
    16. Constantin JM,
    17. Mercier E,
    18. Klouche K,
    19. du Cheyron D,
    20. Piton G,
    21. Annane D,
    22. Jaber S,
    23. van der Linden T,
    24. Blasco G,
    25. Mira JP,
    26. Schwebel C,
    27. Chimot L,
    28. Guiot P,
    29. Nay MA,
    30. Meziani F,
    31. Helms J,
    32. Roger C,
    33. Louart B,
    34. Trusson R,
    35. Dargent A,
    36. Binquet C,
    37. Quenot JP; IDEAL-ICU Trial Investigators and the CRICS TRIGGERSEP Network
    : Timing of renal-replacement therapy in patients with acute kidney injury and sepsis. N Engl J Med 379: 1431–1442, 2018
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. STARRT-AKI Investigators; Canadian Critical Care Trials Group; Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group; United Kingdom Critical Care Research Group; Canadian Nephrology Trials Network; Irish Critical Care Trials Group;
    2. Bagshaw SM,
    3. Wald R,
    4. Adhikari NKJ,
    5. Bellomo R,
    6. da Costa BR,
    7. Dreyfuss D,
    8. Du B,
    9. Gallagher MP,
    10. Gaudry S,
    11. Hoste EA,
    12. Lamontagne F,
    13. Joannidis M,
    14. Landoni G,
    15. Liu KD,
    16. McAuley DF,
    17. McGuinness SP,
    18. Neyra JA,
    19. Nichol AD,
    20. Ostermann M,
    21. Palevsky PM,
    22. Pettila V,
    23. Quenot JP,
    24. Qiu H,
    25. Rochwerg B,
    26. Schneider AG,
    27. Smith OM,
    28. Thome F,
    29. Thorpe KE,
    30. Vaara S,
    31. Weir M,
    32. Wang AY,
    33. Young P,
    34. Zarbock A
    : Timing of initiation of renal-replacement therapy in acute kidney injury. N Engl J Med 383: 240–251, 2020
    OpenUrlPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Semler MW,
    2. Self WH,
    3. Wanderer JP,
    4. Ehrenfeld JM,
    5. Wang L,
    6. Byrne DW,
    7. Stollings JL,
    8. Kumar AB,
    9. Hughes CG,
    10. Hernandez A,
    11. Guillamondegui OD,
    12. May AK,
    13. Weavind L,
    14. Casey JD,
    15. Siew ED,
    16. Shaw AD,
    17. Bernard GR,
    18. Rice TW; SMART Investigators and the Pragmatic Critical Care Research Group
    : Balanced crystalloids versus saline in critically ill adults. N Engl J Med 378: 829–839, 2018
    OpenUrlPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Self WH,
    2. Semler MW,
    3. Wanderer JP,
    4. Wang L,
    5. Byrne DW,
    6. Collins SP,
    7. Slovis CM,
    8. Lindsell CJ,
    9. Ehrenfeld JM,
    10. Siew ED,
    11. Shaw AD,
    12. Bernard GR,
    13. Rice TW; SALT-ED Investigators
    : Balanced crystalloids versus saline in noncritically ill adults. N Engl J Med 378: 819–828, 2018
    OpenUrl
  50. ↵
    1. Göcze I,
    2. Jauch D,
    3. Götz M,
    4. Kennedy P,
    5. Jung B,
    6. Zeman F,
    7. Gnewuch C,
    8. Graf BM,
    9. Gnann W,
    10. Banas B,
    11. Bein T,
    12. Schlitt HJ,
    13. Bergler T
    : Biomarker-guided intervention to prevent acute kidney injury after major surgery: The prospective randomized BigpAK Study. Ann Surg 267: 1013–1020, 2018
    OpenUrlPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Meersch M,
    2. Schmidt C,
    3. Hoffmeier A,
    4. Van Aken H,
    5. Wempe C,
    6. Gerss J,
    7. Zarbock A
    : Prevention of cardiac surgery-associated AKI by implementing the KDIGO guidelines in high risk patients identified by biomarkers: The PrevAKI randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Med 43: 1551–1561, 2017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Bagshaw SM,
    2. Uchino S,
    3. Cruz D,
    4. Bellomo R,
    5. Morimatsu H,
    6. Morgera S,
    7. Schetz M,
    8. Tan I,
    9. Bouman C,
    10. Macedo E,
    11. Gibney N,
    12. Tolwani A,
    13. Oudemans-van Straaten HM,
    14. Ronco C,
    15. Kellum JA; Beginning and Ending Supportive Therapy for the Kidney (BEST Kidney) Investigators
    : A comparison of observed versus estimated baseline creatinine for determination of RIFLE class in patients with acute kidney injury. Nephrol Dial Transplant 24: 2739–2744, 2009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Lafrance JP,
    2. Miller DR
    : Defining acute kidney injury in database studies: The effects of varying the baseline kidney function assessment period and considering CKD status. Am J Kidney Dis 56: 651–660, 2010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Siew ED,
    2. Matheny ME,
    3. Ikizler TA,
    4. Lewis JB,
    5. Miller RA,
    6. Waitman LR,
    7. Go AS,
    8. Parikh CR,
    9. Peterson JF
    : Commonly used surrogates for baseline renal function affect the classification and prognosis of acute kidney injury. Kidney Int 77: 536–542, 2010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Macedo E,
    2. Bouchard J,
    3. Soroko SH,
    4. Chertow GM,
    5. Himmelfarb J,
    6. Ikizler TA,
    7. Paganini EP,
    8. Mehta RL; Program to Improve Care in Acute Renal Disease Study
    : Fluid accumulation, recognition and staging of acute kidney injury in critically-ill patients. Crit Care 14: R82, 2010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Liu KD,
    2. Thompson BT,
    3. Ancukiewicz M,
    4. Steingrub JS,
    5. Douglas IS,
    6. Matthay MA,
    7. Wright P,
    8. Peterson MW,
    9. Rock P,
    10. Hyzy RC,
    11. Anzueto A,
    12. Truwit JD; National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network
    : Acute kidney injury in patients with acute lung injury: Impact of fluid accumulation on classification of acute kidney injury and associated outcomes. Crit Care Med 39: 2665–2671, 2011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Doi K,
    2. Yuen PS,
    3. Eisner C,
    4. Hu X,
    5. Leelahavanichkul A,
    6. Schnermann J,
    7. Star RA
    : Reduced production of creatinine limits its use as marker of kidney injury in sepsis. J Am Soc Nephrol 20: 1217–1221, 2009
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. ↵
    1. Puthucheary ZA,
    2. Rawal J,
    3. McPhail M,
    4. Connolly B,
    5. Ratnayake G,
    6. Chan P,
    7. Hopkinson NS,
    8. Phadke R,
    9. Dew T,
    10. Sidhu PS,
    11. Velloso C,
    12. Seymour J,
    13. Agley CC,
    14. Selby A,
    15. Limb M,
    16. Edwards LM,
    17. Smith K,
    18. Rowlerson A,
    19. Rennie MJ,
    20. Moxham J,
    21. Harridge SD,
    22. Hart N,
    23. Montgomery HE
    : Acute skeletal muscle wasting in critical illness. JAMA 310: 1591–1600, 2013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Prowle JR,
    2. Kolic I,
    3. Purdell-Lewis J,
    4. Taylor R,
    5. Pearse RM,
    6. Kirwan CJ
    : Serum creatinine changes associated with critical illness and detection of persistent renal dysfunction after AKI. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 9: 1015–1023, 2014
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. ↵
    1. Ostermann M,
    2. Bellomo R,
    3. Burdmann EA,
    4. Doi K,
    5. Endre ZH,
    6. Goldstein SL,
    7. Kane-Gill SL,
    8. Liu KD,
    9. Prowle JR,
    10. Shaw AD,
    11. Srisawat N,
    12. Cheung M,
    13. Jadoul M,
    14. Winkelmayer WC,
    15. Kellum JA; Conference Participants
    : Controversies in acute kidney injury: Conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) conference. Kidney Int 98: 294–309, 2020
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  61. ↵
    1. James MT,
    2. Levey AS,
    3. Tonelli M,
    4. Tan Z,
    5. Barry R,
    6. Pannu N,
    7. Ravani P,
    8. Klarenbach SW,
    9. Manns BJ,
    10. Hemmelgarn BR
    : Incidence and prognosis of acute kidney diseases and disorders using an integrated approach to laboratory measurements in a universal health care system. JAMA Netw Open 2: e191795, 2019
    OpenUrl
  62. ↵
    1. Levey AS
    : Defining AKD: The spectrum of AKI, AKD, and CKD. Nephron June 24, 2021: 1–4, 2021
    OpenUrl
  63. ↵
    1. Sawhney S,
    2. Fluck N,
    3. Fraser SD,
    4. Marks A,
    5. Prescott GJ,
    6. Roderick PJ,
    7. Black C
    : KDIGO-based acute kidney injury criteria operate differently in hospitals and the community—Findings from a large population cohort. Nephrol Dial Transplant 31: 922–929, 2016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Chawla LS,
    2. Bellomo R,
    3. Bihorac A,
    4. Goldstein SL,
    5. Siew ED,
    6. Bagshaw SM,
    7. Bittleman D,
    8. Cruz D,
    9. Endre Z,
    10. Fitzgerald RL,
    11. Forni L,
    12. Kane-Gill SL,
    13. Hoste E,
    14. Koyner J,
    15. Liu KD,
    16. Macedo E,
    17. Mehta R,
    18. Murray P,
    19. Nadim M,
    20. Ostermann M,
    21. Palevsky PM,
    22. Pannu N,
    23. Rosner M,
    24. Wald R,
    25. Zarbock A,
    26. Ronco C,
    27. Kellum JA; Acute Disease Quality Initiative Workgroup 16
    : Acute kidney disease and renal recovery: Consensus report of the Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) 16 Workgroup. Nat Rev Nephrol 13: 241–257, 2017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Lameire NH,
    2. Levin A,
    3. Kellum JA,
    4. Cheung M,
    5. Jadoul M,
    6. Winkelmayer WC,
    7. Stevens PE; Conference Participants
    : Harmonizing acute and chronic kidney disease definition and classification: Report of a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) consensus conference. Kidney Int 100: 516–526, 2021
    OpenUrl
  66. ↵
    1. Chu R,
    2. Li C,
    3. Wang S,
    4. Zou W,
    5. Liu G,
    6. Yang L
    : Assessment of KDIGO definitions in patients with histopathologic evidence of acute renal disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 9: 1175–1182, 2014
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  67. ↵
    1. Schunk SJ,
    2. Zarbock A,
    3. Meersch M,
    4. Küllmar M,
    5. Kellum JA,
    6. Schmit D,
    7. Wagner M,
    8. Triem S,
    9. Wagenpfeil S,
    10. Gröne HJ,
    11. Schäfers HJ,
    12. Fliser D,
    13. Speer T,
    14. Zewinger S
    : Association between urinary dickkopf-3, acute kidney injury, and subsequent loss of kidney function in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: An observational cohort study. Lancet 394: 488–496, 2019
    OpenUrl
  68. ↵
    1. Bagshaw SM,
    2. Al-Khafaji A,
    3. Artigas A,
    4. Davison D,
    5. Haase M,
    6. Lissauer M,
    7. Zacharowski K,
    8. Chawla LS,
    9. Kwan T,
    10. Kampf JP,
    11. McPherson P,
    12. Kellum JA
    : External validation of urinary C-C motif chemokine ligand 14 (CCL14) for prediction of persistent acute kidney injury. Crit Care 25: 185, 2021
    OpenUrl
  69. ↵
    1. Hall IE,
    2. Stern EP,
    3. Cantley LG,
    4. Elias JA,
    5. Parikh CR
    : Urine YKL-40 is associated with progressive acute kidney injury or death in hospitalized patients. BMC Nephrol 15: 133, 2014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. ↵
    1. Murray PT,
    2. Mehta RL,
    3. Shaw A,
    4. Ronco C,
    5. Endre Z,
    6. Kellum JA,
    7. Chawla LS,
    8. Cruz D,
    9. Ince C,
    10. Okusa MD; ADQI 10 workgroup
    : Potential use of biomarkers in acute kidney injury: Report and summary of recommendations from the 10th Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative consensus conference. Kidney Int 85: 513–521, 2014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    1. Dépret F,
    2. Hollinger A,
    3. Cariou A,
    4. Deye N,
    5. Vieillard-Baron A,
    6. Fournier MC,
    7. Jaber S,
    8. Damoisel C,
    9. Lu Q,
    10. Monnet X,
    11. Rennuit I,
    12. Darmon M,
    13. Leone M,
    14. Guidet B,
    15. Sonneville R,
    16. Montravers P,
    17. Pili-Floury S,
    18. Lefrant JY,
    19. Duranteau J,
    20. Laterre PF,
    21. Brechot N,
    22. Oueslati H,
    23. Cholley B,
    24. Struck J,
    25. Hartmann O,
    26. Mebazaa A,
    27. Gayat E,
    28. Legrand M
    : Incidence and outcome of subclinical acute kidney injury using penKid in critically ill patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 202: 822–829, 2020
    OpenUrl
  72. ↵
    1. Parikh CR,
    2. Coca SG,
    3. Thiessen-Philbrook H,
    4. Shlipak MG,
    5. Koyner JL,
    6. Wang Z,
    7. Edelstein CL,
    8. Devarajan P,
    9. Patel UD,
    10. Zappitelli M,
    11. Krawczeski CD,
    12. Passik CS,
    13. Swaminathan M,
    14. Garg AX; TRIBE-AKI Consortium
    : Postoperative biomarkers predict acute kidney injury and poor outcomes after adult cardiac surgery. J Am Soc Nephrol 22: 1748–1757, 2011
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  73. ↵
    1. Parikh CR,
    2. Devarajan P,
    3. Zappitelli M,
    4. Sint K,
    5. Thiessen-Philbrook H,
    6. Li S,
    7. Kim RW,
    8. Koyner JL,
    9. Coca SG,
    10. Edelstein CL,
    11. Shlipak MG,
    12. Garg AX,
    13. Krawczeski CD; TRIBE-AKI Consortium
    : Postoperative biomarkers predict acute kidney injury and poor outcomes after pediatric cardiac surgery. J Am Soc Nephrol 22: 1737–1747, 2011
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. ↵
    1. de Geus HR,
    2. Bakker J,
    3. Lesaffre EM,
    4. le Noble JL
    : Neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin at ICU admission predicts for acute kidney injury in adult patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 183: 907–914, 2011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. ↵
    1. Siew ED,
    2. Ware LB,
    3. Gebretsadik T,
    4. Shintani A,
    5. Moons KG,
    6. Wickersham N,
    7. Bossert F,
    8. Ikizler TA
    : Urine neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin moderately predicts acute kidney injury in critically ill adults. J Am Soc Nephrol 20: 1823–1832, 2009
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. ↵
    1. Siew ED,
    2. Ware LB,
    3. Bian A,
    4. Shintani A,
    5. Eden SK,
    6. Wickersham N,
    7. Cripps B,
    8. Ikizler TA
    : Distinct injury markers for the early detection and prognosis of incident acute kidney injury in critically ill adults with preserved kidney function. Kidney Int 84: 786–794, 2013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. ↵
    1. Cruz DN,
    2. de Cal M,
    3. Garzotto F,
    4. Perazella MA,
    5. Lentini P,
    6. Corradi V,
    7. Piccinni P,
    8. Ronco C
    : Plasma neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin is an early biomarker for acute kidney injury in an adult ICU population. Intensive Care Med 36: 444–451, 2010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. ↵
    1. Parikh CR,
    2. Abraham E,
    3. Ancukiewicz M,
    4. Edelstein CL
    : Urine IL-18 is an early diagnostic marker for acute kidney injury and predicts mortality in the intensive care unit. J Am Soc Nephrol 16: 3046–3052, 2005
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  79. ↵
    1. Siew ED,
    2. Ikizler TA,
    3. Gebretsadik T,
    4. Shintani A,
    5. Wickersham N,
    6. Bossert F,
    7. Peterson JF,
    8. Parikh CR,
    9. May AK,
    10. Ware LB
    : Elevated urinary IL-18 levels at the time of ICU admission predict adverse clinical outcomes. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 5: 1497–1505, 2010
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  80. ↵
    1. Kashani K,
    2. Al-Khafaji A,
    3. Ardiles T,
    4. Artigas A,
    5. Bagshaw SM,
    6. Bell M,
    7. Bihorac A,
    8. Birkhahn R,
    9. Cely CM,
    10. Chawla LS,
    11. Davison DL,
    12. Feldkamp T,
    13. Forni LG,
    14. Gong MN,
    15. Gunnerson KJ,
    16. Haase M,
    17. Hackett J,
    18. Honore PM,
    19. Hoste EA,
    20. Joannes-Boyau O,
    21. Joannidis M,
    22. Kim P,
    23. Koyner JL,
    24. Laskowitz DT,
    25. Lissauer ME,
    26. Marx G,
    27. McCullough PA,
    28. Mullaney S,
    29. Ostermann M,
    30. Rimmelé T,
    31. Shapiro NI,
    32. Shaw AD,
    33. Shi J,
    34. Sprague AM,
    35. Vincent JL,
    36. Vinsonneau C,
    37. Wagner L,
    38. Walker MG,
    39. Wilkerson RG,
    40. Zacharowski K,
    41. Kellum JA
    : Discovery and validation of cell cycle arrest biomarkers in human acute kidney injury. Crit Care 17: R25, 2013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. ↵
    1. Hoste EA,
    2. McCullough PA,
    3. Kashani K,
    4. Chawla LS,
    5. Joannidis M,
    6. Shaw AD,
    7. Feldkamp T,
    8. Uettwiller-Geiger DL,
    9. McCarthy P,
    10. Shi J,
    11. Walker MG,
    12. Kellum JA; Sapphire Investigators
    : Derivation and validation of cutoffs for clinical use of cell cycle arrest biomarkers. Nephrol Dial Transplant 29: 2054–2061, 2014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. ↵
    NephroCheck [package insert]. San Diego, CA: Astute Medical; 2014
  83. ↵
    1. Mishra J,
    2. Ma Q,
    3. Kelly C,
    4. Mitsnefes M,
    5. Mori K,
    6. Barasch J,
    7. Devarajan P
    : Kidney NGAL is a novel early marker of acute injury following transplantation. Pediatr Nephrol 21: 856–863, 2006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. ↵
    1. Zhang PL,
    2. Rothblum LI,
    3. Han WK,
    4. Blasick TM,
    5. Potdar S,
    6. Bonventre JV
    : Kidney injury molecule-1 expression in transplant biopsies is a sensitive measure of cell injury. Kidney Int 73: 608–614, 2008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. ↵
    1. Takasu O,
    2. Gaut JP,
    3. Watanabe E,
    4. To K,
    5. Fagley RE,
    6. Sato B,
    7. Jarman S,
    8. Efimov IR,
    9. Janks DL,
    10. Srivastava A,
    11. Bhayani SB,
    12. Drewry A,
    13. Swanson PE,
    14. Hotchkiss RS
    : Mechanisms of cardiac and renal dysfunction in patients dying of sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 187: 509–517, 2013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  86. ↵
    1. Krawczeski CD,
    2. Goldstein SL,
    3. Woo JG,
    4. Wang Y,
    5. Piyaphanee N,
    6. Ma Q,
    7. Bennett M,
    8. Devarajan P
    : Temporal relationship and predictive value of urinary acute kidney injury biomarkers after pediatric cardiopulmonary bypass. J Am Coll Cardiol 58: 2301–2309, 2011
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  87. ↵
    1. Endre ZH,
    2. Pickering JW,
    3. Walker RJ,
    4. Devarajan P,
    5. Edelstein CL,
    6. Bonventre JV,
    7. Frampton CM,
    8. Bennett MR,
    9. Ma Q,
    10. Sabbisetti VS,
    11. Vaidya VS,
    12. Walcher AM,
    13. Shaw GM,
    14. Henderson SJ,
    15. Nejat M,
    16. Schollum JB,
    17. George PM
    : Improved performance of urinary biomarkers of acute kidney injury in the critically ill by stratification for injury duration and baseline renal function. Kidney Int 79: 1119–1130, 2011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. ↵
    1. Vijayan A,
    2. Faubel S,
    3. Askenazi DJ,
    4. Cerda J,
    5. Fissell WH,
    6. Heung M,
    7. Humphreys BD,
    8. Koyner JL,
    9. Liu KD,
    10. Mour G,
    11. Nolin TD,
    12. Bihorac A; American Society of Nephrology Acute Kidney Injury Advisory Group
    : Clinical use of the urine biomarker [TIMP-2] x [IGFBP7] for acute kidney injury risk assessment. Am J Kidney Dis 68: 19–28, 2016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. ↵
    1. Moledina DG,
    2. Hall IE,
    3. Thiessen-Philbrook H,
    4. Reese PP,
    5. Weng FL,
    6. Schröppel B,
    7. Doshi MD,
    8. Wilson FP,
    9. Coca SG,
    10. Parikh CR
    : Performance of serum creatinine and kidney injury biomarkers for diagnosing histologic acute tubular injury. Am J Kidney Dis 70: 807–816, 2017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. ↵
    1. Kiryluk K,
    2. Bomback AS,
    3. Cheng YL,
    4. Xu K,
    5. Camara PG,
    6. Rabadan R,
    7. Sims PA,
    8. Barasch J
    : Precision medicine for acute kidney injury (AKI): Redefining AKI by agnostic kidney tissue interrogation and genetics. Semin Nephrol 38: 40–51, 2018
    OpenUrlPubMed
  91. ↵
    1. Ostermann M,
    2. Zarbock A,
    3. Goldstein S,
    4. Kashani K,
    5. Macedo E,
    6. Murugan R,
    7. Bell M,
    8. Forni L,
    9. Guzzi L,
    10. Joannidis M,
    11. Kane-Gill SL,
    12. Legrand M,
    13. Mehta R,
    14. Murray PT,
    15. Pickkers P,
    16. Plebani M,
    17. Prowle J,
    18. Ricci Z,
    19. Rimmelé T,
    20. Rosner M,
    21. Shaw AD,
    22. Kellum JA,
    23. Ronco C
    : Recommendations on acute kidney injury biomarkers from the Acute Disease Quality Initiative Consensus Conference: A consensus statement. JAMA Netw Open 3: e2019209, 2020
    OpenUrl
  92. ↵
    1. Rizo-Topete LM,
    2. Rosner MH,
    3. Ronco C
    : Acute kidney injury risk assessment and the nephrology rapid response team. Blood Purif 43: 82–88, 2017
    OpenUrl
  93. ↵
    1. Ronco C,
    2. Rizo-Topete L,
    3. Serrano-Soto M,
    4. Kashani K
    : Pro: prevention of acute kidney injury: Time for teamwork and new biomarkers. Nephrol Dial Transplant 32: 408–413, 2017
    OpenUrlPubMed
  94. ↵
    1. Moledina DG,
    2. Wilson FP,
    3. Pober JS,
    4. Perazella MA,
    5. Singh N,
    6. Luciano RL,
    7. Obeid W,
    8. Lin H,
    9. Kuperman M,
    10. Moeckel GW,
    11. Kashgarian M,
    12. Cantley LG,
    13. Parikh CR
    : Urine TNF-α and IL-9 for clinical diagnosis of acute interstitial nephritis. JCI Insight 4: e127456, 2019
    OpenUrl
  95. ↵
    1. Bhatraju PK,
    2. Zelnick LR,
    3. Herting J,
    4. Katz R,
    5. Mikacenic C,
    6. Kosamo S,
    7. Morrell ED,
    8. Robinson-Cohen C,
    9. Calfee CS,
    10. Christie JD,
    11. Liu KD,
    12. Matthay MA,
    13. Hahn WO,
    14. Dmyterko V,
    15. Slivinski NSJ,
    16. Russell JA,
    17. Walley KR,
    18. Christiani DC,
    19. Liles WC,
    20. Himmelfarb J,
    21. Wurfel MM
    : Identification of acute kidney injury subphenotypes with differing molecular signatures and responses to vasopressin therapy. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 199: 863–872, 2019
    OpenUrlPubMed
  96. ↵
    1. Al-Jaghbeer M,
    2. Dealmeida D,
    3. Bilderback A,
    4. Ambrosino R,
    5. Kellum JA
    : Clinical decision support for in-hospital AKI. J Am Soc Nephrol 29: 654–660, 2018
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  97. ↵
    1. Selby NM,
    2. Casula A,
    3. Lamming L,
    4. Stoves J,
    5. Samarasinghe Y,
    6. Lewington AJ,
    7. Roberts R,
    8. Shah N,
    9. Johnson M,
    10. Jackson N,
    11. Jones C,
    12. Lenguerrand E,
    13. McDonach E,
    14. Fluck RJ,
    15. Mohammed MA,
    16. Caskey FJ
    : An organizational-level program of intervention for AKI: A pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized trial. J Am Soc Nephrol 30: 505–515, 2019
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  98. ↵
    1. Wilson FP,
    2. Martin M,
    3. Yamamoto Y,
    4. Partridge C,
    5. Moreira E,
    6. Arora T,
    7. Biswas A,
    8. Feldman H,
    9. Garg AX,
    10. Greenberg JH,
    11. Hinchcliff M,
    12. Latham S,
    13. Li F,
    14. Lin H,
    15. Mansour SG,
    16. Moledina DG,
    17. Palevsky PM,
    18. Parikh CR,
    19. Simonov M,
    20. Testani J,
    21. Ugwuowo U
    : Electronic health record alerts for acute kidney injury: Multicenter, randomized clinical trial. BMJ 372: m4786, 2021
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  99. ↵
    1. Goldstein SL,
    2. Mottes T,
    3. Simpson K,
    4. Barclay C,
    5. Muething S,
    6. Haslam DB,
    7. Kirkendall ES
    : A sustained quality improvement program reduces nephrotoxic medication-associated acute kidney injury. Kidney Int 90: 212–221, 2016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  100. ↵
    1. Goldstein SL,
    2. Dahale D,
    3. Kirkendall ES,
    4. Mottes T,
    5. Kaplan H,
    6. Muething S,
    7. Askenazi DJ,
    8. Henderson T,
    9. Dill L,
    10. Somers MJG,
    11. Kerr J,
    12. Gilarde J,
    13. Zaritsky J,
    14. Bica V,
    15. Brophy PD,
    16. Misurac J,
    17. Hackbarth R,
    18. Steinke J,
    19. Mooney J,
    20. Ogrin S,
    21. Chadha V,
    22. Warady B,
    23. Ogden R,
    24. Hoebing W,
    25. Symons J,
    26. Yonekawa K,
    27. Menon S,
    28. Abrams L,
    29. Sutherland S,
    30. Weng P,
    31. Zhang F,
    32. Walsh K
    : A prospective multi-center quality improvement initiative (NINJA) indicates a reduction in nephrotoxic acute kidney injury in hospitalized children. Kidney Int 97: 580–588, 2020
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. ↵
    1. Tomašev N,
    2. Glorot X,
    3. Rae JW,
    4. Zielinski M,
    5. Askham H,
    6. Saraiva A,
    7. Mottram A,
    8. Meyer C,
    9. Ravuri S,
    10. Protsyuk I,
    11. Connell A,
    12. Hughes CO,
    13. Karthikesalingam A,
    14. Cornebise J,
    15. Montgomery H,
    16. Rees G,
    17. Laing C,
    18. Baker CR,
    19. Peterson K,
    20. Reeves R,
    21. Hassabis D,
    22. King D,
    23. Suleyman M,
    24. Back T,
    25. Nielson C,
    26. Ledsam JR,
    27. Mohamed S
    : A clinically applicable approach to continuous prediction of future acute kidney injury. Nature 572: 116–119, 2019
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  102. ↵
    1. Koyner JL,
    2. Carey KA,
    3. Edelson DP,
    4. Churpek MM
    : The development of a machine learning inpatient acute kidney injury prediction model. Crit Care Med 46: 1070–1077, 2018
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  103. ↵
    1. Simonov M,
    2. Ugwuowo U,
    3. Moreira E,
    4. Yamamoto Y,
    5. Biswas A,
    6. Martin M,
    7. Testani J,
    8. Wilson FP
    : A simple real-time model for predicting acute kidney injury in hospitalized patients in the US: A descriptive modeling study. PLoS Med 16: e1002861, 2019
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  104. ↵
    1. Tran NK,
    2. Sen S,
    3. Palmieri TL,
    4. Lima K,
    5. Falwell S,
    6. Wajda J,
    7. Rashidi HH
    : Artificial intelligence and machine learning for predicting acute kidney injury in severely burned patients: A proof of concept. Burns 45: 1350–1358, 2019
    OpenUrl
  105. ↵
    1. Qu C,
    2. Gao L,
    3. Yu XQ,
    4. Wei M,
    5. Fang GQ,
    6. He J,
    7. Cao LX,
    8. Ke L,
    9. Tong ZH,
    10. Li WQ
    : Machine learning models of acute kidney injury prediction in acute pancreatitis patients. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2020: 3431290, 2020
    OpenUrl
  106. ↵
    1. Thottakkara P,
    2. Ozrazgat-Baslanti T,
    3. Hupf BB,
    4. Rashidi P,
    5. Pardalos P,
    6. Momcilovic P,
    7. Bihorac A
    : Application of machine learning techniques to high-dimensional clinical data to forecast postoperative complications. PLoS One 11: e0155705, 2016
    OpenUrlPubMed
  107. ↵
    1. Datta S,
    2. Loftus TJ,
    3. Ruppert MM,
    4. Giordano C,
    5. Upchurch Jr GR,
    6. Rashidi P,
    7. Ozrazgat-Baslanti T,
    8. Bihorac A
    : Added value of intraoperative data for predicting postoperative complications: The MySurgeryRisk PostOp extension. J Surg Res 254: 350–363, 2020
    OpenUrl
  108. ↵
    1. Tseng PY,
    2. Chen YT,
    3. Wang CH,
    4. Chiu KM,
    5. Peng YS,
    6. Hsu SP,
    7. Chen KL,
    8. Yang CY,
    9. Lee OK
    : Prediction of the development of acute kidney injury following cardiac surgery by machine learning. Crit Care 24: 478, 2020
    OpenUrl
  109. ↵
    1. Semler MW,
    2. Rice TW,
    3. Shaw AD,
    4. Siew ED,
    5. Self WH,
    6. Kumar AB,
    7. Byrne DW,
    8. Ehrenfeld JM,
    9. Wanderer JP
    : Identification of major adverse kidney events within the electronic health record. J Med Syst 40: 167, 2016
    OpenUrlPubMed
  110. ↵
    1. Liu KD,
    2. Goldstein SL,
    3. Vijayan A,
    4. Parikh CR,
    5. Kashani K,
    6. Okusa MD,
    7. Agarwal A,
    8. Cerdá J; AKI!Now Initiative of the American Society of Nephrology
    : AKI!Now Initiative: Recommendations for awareness, recognition, and management of AKI. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 15: 1838–1847, 2020
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  111. ↵
    1. Soranno DEBA,
    2. Goldstein SL,
    3. Kashani KB,
    4. Menon S,
    5. Nadkarni GN,
    6. Neyra JA,
    7. Pannu NI,
    8. Singh K,
    9. Cerda J,
    10. Koyner JL
    : Artificial Intelligence for AKI!Now: Let’s not await Plato’s utopian republic. Kidney360 2: 2021
  112. ↵
    1. Haase M,
    2. Devarajan P,
    3. Haase-Fielitz A,
    4. Bellomo R,
    5. Cruz DN,
    6. Wagener G,
    7. Krawczeski CD,
    8. Koyner JL,
    9. Murray P,
    10. Zappitelli M,
    11. Goldstein SL,
    12. Makris K,
    13. Ronco C,
    14. Martensson J,
    15. Martling CR,
    16. Venge P,
    17. Siew E,
    18. Ware LB,
    19. Ikizler TA,
    20. Mertens PR
    : The outcome of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin-positive subclinical acute kidney injury: A multicenter pooled analysis of prospective studies. J Am Coll Cardiol 57: 1752–1761, 2011
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  113. ↵
    1. Albert C,
    2. Albert A,
    3. Kube J,
    4. Bellomo R,
    5. Wettersten N,
    6. Kuppe H,
    7. Westphal S,
    8. Haase M,
    9. Haase-Fielitz A
    : Urinary biomarkers may provide prognostic information for subclinical acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 155: 2441–2452.e13, 2018
    OpenUrl
  114. ↵
    1. Koyner JL,
    2. Zarbock A,
    3. Basu RK,
    4. Ronco C
    : The impact of biomarkers of acute kidney injury on individual patient care. Nephrol Dial Transplant 35: 1295–1305, 2020
    OpenUrl
    1. See EJ,
    2. Jayasinghe K,
    3. Glassford N,
    4. Bailey M,
    5. Johnson DW,
    6. Polkinghorne KR,
    7. Toussaint ND,
    8. Bellomo R
    : Long-term risk of adverse outcomes after acute kidney injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies using consensus definitions of exposure. Kidney Int 95: 160–172, 2019
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  115. ↵
    1. Siew ED,
    2. Matheny ME
    : Choice of reference serum creatinine in defining acute kidney injury. Nephron 131: 107–112, 2015
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Endre ZH,
    2. Walker RJ,
    3. Pickering JW,
    4. Shaw GM,
    5. Frampton CM,
    6. Henderson SJ,
    7. Hutchison R,
    8. Mehrtens JE,
    9. Robinson JM,
    10. Schollum JB,
    11. Westhuyzen J,
    12. Celi LA,
    13. McGinley RJ,
    14. Campbell IJ,
    15. George PM
    : Early intervention with erythropoietin does not affect the outcome of acute kidney injury (the EARLYARF trial). Kidney Int 77: 1020–1030, 2010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Zarbock A,
    2. Küllmar M,
    3. Ostermann M,
    4. Lucchese G,
    5. Baig K,
    6. Cennamo A,
    7. Rajani R,
    8. McCorkell S,
    9. Arndt C,
    10. Wulf H,
    11. Irqsusi M,
    12. Monaco F,
    13. Di Prima AL,
    14. García Alvarez M,
    15. Italiano S,
    16. Miralles Bagan J,
    17. Kunst G,
    18. Nair S,
    19. L’Acqua C,
    20. Hoste E,
    21. Vandenberghe W,
    22. Honore PM,
    23. Kellum JA,
    24. Forni LG,
    25. Grieshaber P,
    26. Massoth C,
    27. Weiss R,
    28. Gerss J,
    29. Wempe C,
    30. Meersch M
    : Prevention of cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury by implementing the KDIGO guidelines in high-risk patients identified by biomarkers: The PrevAKI-multicenter randomized controlled trial. Anesth Analg 133: 292–302, 2021
    OpenUrl
    1. Coca SG,
    2. Garg AX,
    3. Thiessen-Philbrook H,
    4. Koyner JL,
    5. Patel UD,
    6. Krumholz HM,
    7. Shlipak MG,
    8. Parikh CR; TRIBE-AKI Consortium
    : Urinary biomarkers of AKI and mortality 3 years after cardiac surgery. J Am Soc Nephrol 25: 1063–1071, 2014
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Pike F,
    2. Murugan R,
    3. Keener C,
    4. Palevsky PM,
    5. Vijayan A,
    6. Unruh M,
    7. Finkel K,
    8. Wen X,
    9. Kellum JA; Biological Markers for Recovery of Kidney (BioMaRK) Study Investigators
    : Biomarker enhanced risk prediction for adverse outcomes in critically ill patients receiving RRT. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 10: 1332–1339, 2015
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Koyner JL,
    2. Shaw AD,
    3. Chawla LS,
    4. Hoste EA,
    5. Bihorac A,
    6. Kashani K,
    7. Haase M,
    8. Shi J,
    9. Kellum JA; Sapphire Investigators
    : Tissue inhibitor metalloproteinase-2 (TIMP-2)⋅IGF-binding protein-7 (IGFBP7) levels are associated with adverse long-term outcomes in patients with AKI. J Am Soc Nephrol 26: 1747–1754, 2015
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Parr SK,
    2. Clark AJ,
    3. Bian A,
    4. Shintani AK,
    5. Wickersham NE,
    6. Ware LB,
    7. Ikizler TA,
    8. Siew ED
    : Urinary L-FABP predicts poor outcomes in critically ill patients with early acute kidney injury. Kidney Int 87: 640–648, 2015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hollinger A,
    2. Wittebole X,
    3. François B,
    4. Pickkers P,
    5. Antonelli M,
    6. Gayat E,
    7. Chousterman BG,
    8. Lascarrou JB,
    9. Dugernier T,
    10. Di Somma S,
    11. Struck J,
    12. Bergmann A,
    13. Beishuizen A,
    14. Constantin JM,
    15. Damoisel C,
    16. Deye N,
    17. Gaudry S,
    18. Huberlant V,
    19. Marx G,
    20. Mercier E,
    21. Oueslati H,
    22. Hartmann O,
    23. Sonneville R,
    24. Laterre PF,
    25. Mebazaa A,
    26. Legrand M
    : Proenkephalin A 119-159 (Penkid) is an early biomarker of septic acute kidney injury: the Kidney in Sepsis and Septic Shock (Kid-SSS) study. Kidney Int Rep 3: 1424–1433, 2018
    OpenUrl
    1. Xie Y,
    2. Ankawi G,
    3. Yang B,
    4. Garzotto F,
    5. Passannante A,
    6. Breglia A,
    7. Digvijay K,
    8. Ferrari F,
    9. Brendolan A,
    10. Raffaele B,
    11. Giavarina D,
    12. Gregori D,
    13. Ronco C
    : Tissue inhibitor metalloproteinase-2 (TIMP-2) • IGF-binding protein-7 (IGFBP7) levels are associated with adverse outcomes in patients in the intensive care unit with acute kidney injury. Kidney Int 95: 1486–1493, 2019
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Legrand M,
    2. Hollinger A,
    3. Vieillard-Baron A,
    4. Dépret F,
    5. Cariou A,
    6. Deye N,
    7. Fournier MC,
    8. Jaber S,
    9. Damoisel C,
    10. Lu Q,
    11. Monnet X,
    12. Rennuit I,
    13. Darmon M,
    14. Zafrani L,
    15. Leone M,
    16. Guidet B,
    17. Friedman D,
    18. Sonneville R,
    19. Montravers P,
    20. Pili-Floury S,
    21. Lefrant JY,
    22. Duranteau J,
    23. Laterre PF,
    24. Brechot N,
    25. Oueslati H,
    26. Cholley B,
    27. Launay JM,
    28. Ishihara S,
    29. Sato N,
    30. Mebazaa A,
    31. Gayat E; French and euRopean Outcome reGistry in ICUs (FROG-ICU) Investigators
    : One-year prognosis of kidney injury at discharge from the ICU: A multicenter observational study. Crit Care Med 47: e953–e961, 2019
    OpenUrl
    1. Hoste E,
    2. Bihorac A,
    3. Al-Khafaji A,
    4. Ortega LM,
    5. Ostermann M,
    6. Haase M,
    7. Zacharowski K,
    8. Wunderink R,
    9. Heung M,
    10. Lissauer M,
    11. Self WH,
    12. Koyner JL,
    13. Honore PM,
    14. Prowle JR,
    15. Joannidis M,
    16. Forni LG,
    17. Kampf JP,
    18. McPherson P,
    19. Kellum JA,
    20. Chawla LS; RUBY Investigators
    : Identification and validation of biomarkers of persistent acute kidney injury: The RUBY study. Intensive Care Med 46: 943–953, 2020
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 17 (5)
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 17, Issue 5
May 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in CJASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Overview of Diagnostic Criteria and Epidemiology of Acute Kidney Injury and Acute Kidney Disease in the Critically Ill Patient
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Overview of Diagnostic Criteria and Epidemiology of Acute Kidney Injury and Acute Kidney Disease in the Critically Ill Patient
Bethany C. Birkelo, Neesh Pannu, Edward D. Siew
CJASN May 2022, 17 (5) 717-735; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.14181021

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Overview of Diagnostic Criteria and Epidemiology of Acute Kidney Injury and Acute Kidney Disease in the Critically Ill Patient
Bethany C. Birkelo, Neesh Pannu, Edward D. Siew
CJASN May 2022, 17 (5) 717-735; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.14181021
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • The Need for a Consensus Definition
    • What Have the Consensus Definitions Taught Us about AKI in the ICU
    • Use in Clinical Trials and Practice
    • Limitations of Consensus Definitions
    • Acute Kidney Disease
    • Novel Biomarkers of AKI
    • Artificial Intelligence/Informatics
    • Conclusion
    • Disclosures
    • Funding
    • Acknowledgments
    • Author Contributions
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Radiographic Contrast Media and the Kidney
  • The Pathophysiology of Sepsis-Associated AKI
  • Postoperative AKI
Show more Critical Care Nephrology and Acute Kidney Injury

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Keywords

  • critical care nephrology and acute kidney injury series
  • acute kidney injury
  • epidemiology

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Trainee of the Year
  • Author Resources
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • CJASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About CJASN
  • CJASN Email Alerts
  • CJASN Key Impact Information
  • CJASN Podcasts
  • CJASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe to ASN Journals
  • Wolters Kluwer Partnership

© 2022 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1555-9041 Online ISSN - 1555-905X

Powered by HighWire